Deletes a promoted purchase from App Store Connect by its ID, removing it from the promoted purchases list.
DELETE /v1/promotedPurchases/{id} (DELETE /v1/promotedPurchases/{id})
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing beyond the raw HTTP verb. The DELETE method does signal a destructive, likely irreversible operation, but there is no disclosure of required permissions, referential side effects, or failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is very short and front-loaded, but the parenthetical repetition of the same path is pure noise rather than useful concision. The brevity here reflects under-specification, not efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should state at minimum what is destroyed and any auth/relationship implications. None of that is present, leaving the agent to infer the blast radius of the call entirely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is a single parameter (id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents its meaning. The description adds nothing beyond the path template, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description only echoes the HTTP verb and the endpoint path that the tool name (promoted_purchases_delete_instance) already encodes, and even duplicates that line verbatim in parentheses. It is effectively a tautology of the name rather than an explanation of what deleting a promoted purchase means.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as promoted_purchases_update_instance or apps_promoted_purchases_replace_to_many_relationship. There is no mention of prerequisites, or of what should happen to the parent app's promoted-purchase relationship after deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.